Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
TransporTaT ion research Board Washington, D.C. 2012 www.tRB.org N a t i o N a l c o o p e r a t i v e F r e i g h t r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m NcFrp RepoRt 16 Subscriber Categories Freight Transportation â¢ Planning and Forecasting â¢ Terminals and Facilities preserving and protecting Freight infrastructure and routes Christensen AssoCiAtes Madison, WI University of texAs At AUstinâCenter for trAnsportAtion reseArCh Austin, TX Grow & BrUeninG Salt Lake City, UT KAthryn h.s. pett Washington, DC Research sponsored by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Published reports of the national cooperative Freight research program are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America naTional cooperaTive FreighT research program Americaâs freight transportation system makes critical contributions to the nationâs economy, security, and quality of life. The freight trans- portation system in the United States is a complex, decentralized, and dynamic network of private and public entities, involving all modes of transportationâtrucking, rail, waterways, air, and pipelines. In re- cent years, the demand for freight transportation service has been increasing fueled by growth in international trade; however, bottle- necks or congestion points in the system are exposing the inadequa- cies of current infrastructure and operations to meet the growing demand for freight. Strategic operational and investment decisions by governments at all levels will be necessary to maintain freight system performance, and will in turn require sound technical guidance based on research. The National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) is a cooperative research program sponsored by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) under Grant No. DTOS59-06-G-00039 and administered by the Transportation Re- search Board (TRB). The program was authorized in 2005 with the pas- sage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Eq- uity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). On September 6, 2006, a contract to begin work was executed between RITA and The National Academies. The NCFRP will carry out applied research on problems facing the freight industry that are not being adequately addressed by existing research programs. Program guidance is provided by an Oversight Committee com- prised of a representative cross section of freight stakeholders ap- pointed by the National Research Council of The National Academies. The NCFRP Oversight Committee meets annually to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and de- fining funding levels and expected products. Research problem state- ments recommending research needs for consideration by the Over- sight Committee are solicited annually, but may be submitted to TRB at any time. Each selected project is assigned to a panel, appointed by TRB, which provides technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. Heavy emphasis is placed on including members representing the intended users of the research products. The NCFRP will produce a series of research reports and other products such as guidebooks for practitioners. Primary emphasis will be placed on disseminating NCFRP results to the intended end-users of the research: freight shippers and carriers, service providers, suppli- ers, and public officials. T T T ncFrp reporT 16 Project NCFRP-24 ISSN 1947-5659 ISBN 978-0-309-21392-9 Library of Congress Control Number 2012932185 Â© 2012 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. copYrighT inFormaTion Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the un- derstanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, RITA, or PHMSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. noTice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the research- ers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Re- search Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
crp sTaFF For ncFrp reporT 16 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs William C. Rogers, Senior Program Officer Charlotte Thomas, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Hilary Freer, Senior Editor ncFrp proJecT 24 panel John K. DeCrosta, American President Lines Limited, Washington, DC (Chair) William D. Gardner, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul, MN Dennis Kearns, BNSF Railway Company, Austin, TX Vicente âVincentâ Mantero, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY Roseann OâLaughlin, Chicago, IL Roberta E. Weisbrod, Sustainable Ports, Brooklyn, NY Deborah Denise Johnson, RITA Liaison Spencer Stevens, FHWA Liaison Randolph R. Resor, U.S.DOT Liaison Joedy W. Cambridge, TRB Liaison c o o p e r a t i v e r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m s
F o r e W o r D NCFRP Report 16: Preserving and Protecting Freight Infrastructure and Routes provides practical tools for public and private stakeholders to develop, preserve, protect, and enhance freight transportation infrastructure and routes for all modes of transportation. The report provides guidance to decision makers involved in freight facility operations, freight trans- portation planning, and land use on how to avoid conflicting land uses, or mitigate exist- ing ones, by (1) providing information about freight transportation and its importance to peopleâs everyday lives; (2) illustrating the types of conflicts between freight and other land uses and their consequences; and (3) providing tools and resources to preserve facilities and corridors, including prevention or resolution of these conflicts. An innovative contribution of the research is the development of a website, EnvisionFreight.com, which is intended to complement this report. For many of the topics covered in this report, more detailed materials are available on the website. References to the website are provided in this report where relevant. The appendixes to the contractorâs final report are included herein on CRP-CD-103 and are available for download on the TRB website as an ISO image. Freight transportation infrastructure and operations are threatened by a variety of fac- tors and trends. Examples include gentrification along truck routes connecting to urban freight-generating facilities such as manufacturing and distribution facilities and marine ports that create pressures to reduce or constrain freight activities; prohibitions placed on freight operations because of noise, visual pollution, and emissions impacts; and incom- patible land development adjacent to century-old port and rail facilities. Without better planning, the projected growth in urban areas in the United States, combined with the corresponding increase in freight demand, will result in the continued threat to freight infrastructure from âhigher valueâ land use. Once encroachment by incompatible develop- ment has occurred near freight facilities, mitigation can be an expensive, lengthy, and often unsuccessful process. Similarly, freight relocation often negatively impacts freight trans- portation by increasing travel distances or by adding complexity to freight interchanges, ultimately resulting in increased costs to business and consumers. A better approach is to plan for and identify potential areas of encroachment and conflict before they occur and provide governmental agencies and private stakeholders with the knowledge and tools to prevent incompatible development near critical freight infrastructure. Where freight and non-freight land uses co-exist, decision makers may want to adopt more effective strategies for mitigation, conflict mediation, and redevelopment approaches that integrate freight facility preservation into broader public planning efforts. Under NCFRP Project 24, Christensen Associates, with the assistance of the University of Texas at Austin â Center for Transportation Research, Grow & Bruening, and Kathryn H.S. Pett, was asked to provide guidance to public and private stakeholders on how to By William C. Rogers Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
develop, preserve, protect, and enhance freight transportation infrastructure and routes for all modes of transportation. To accomplish the research objectives, the research team (1) described the general benefits and importance of an integrated multimodal freight trans- portation system for communities, regions, and the nation; (2) identified and categorized the common conflicts and barriers between goods movement activities and public interests and concerns; (3) identified and evaluated a variety of North American and international efforts and approaches to preserve, protect, and enhance freight infrastructure and routes; (4) conducted three in-depth case studies of the application, acceptance, and effectiveness of these efforts and approaches; (5) developed guidelines that define the suggested role of government at all levels and opportunities for private stakeholders in preserving, pro- tecting, and enhancing freight infrastructure and routes; (6) developed a web-based self- learning instruction tool providing practical knowledge and methods to apply recommended guidelines to real-world situations; and (7) held a peer exchange to evaluate the guidelines and self-learning instruction tool.
c o n t e n t s 1 Summary 11 Chapter 1 Introduction 11 The Importance of Freight Transportation 11 Conflicts between Freight and Other Land Uses 12 Preservation and Protection Strategies and Freight-Compatible Development 12 EnvisionFreight Website and Guidebook 13 Chapter 2 The Role of Freight Transportation in Product Supply Chains 13 Supply Chains and Transportation 14 The U.S. Freight Transportation System 18 The Effects of Capacity and Congestion on Freight Transportation 20 Chapter 3 Overview of Conflicting Land Uses and Freight-Transportation-Related Services 20 Conflicting Land Uses 20 Barriers to Freight-Transportation-Related Services 21 Conflicts and Barriers Matrices 22 Chapter 4 Issues Identified and Lessons Learned from NCFRP Project 24 Case Studies and Surveys 22 Introduction 22 Sources of Conflict Between Freight and Other Land Uses 25 Process Improvements for Preventing or Resolving Land-Use Conflicts 28 Summary of Lessons Learned 30 Chapter 5 Overview of Preservation and Protection Strategies and Freight-Compatible Development 30 Examples of Freight Preservation and Protection Strategies 33 Tools for Freight-Compatible Development 35 Chapter 6 Long-Range Planning for Freight-Compatible Development 35 State Enabling Acts and the General or Comprehensive Plan 37 Recommended Changes to Enabling Act Comprehensive Planning Goals Section 38 Guidelines for Developing Comprehensive Plan Freight Components 40 Resources and Materials for Developing a Comprehensive Plan 40 State Transportation Planning 41 MPO Planning 42 Regional Visioning and Freight 43 Mapping Freight Corridors and Facilities 44 Summary
45 Chapter 7 Zoning Activities Related to Freight Facilities and Corridors 45 Overview of Zoning Approaches 48 Cluster Zoning 49 Lot Depth 49 Setback Standards 50 Buffer Zones and Non-Access Easements 53 Container Storage Zoning Ordinance 53 Restricted Hours for Truck Activities 53 Delineating Truck Routes, Including Routes for Hazardous Materials 54 Overlay Zones: Industrial and/or Freight Overlay Protection Zones 55 Urban Noise Level Information and Zoning Restrictions 56 Specific Noise Abatement Design Criteria 56 Airport Influence Overlay Districts 56 Summary 60 Chapter 8 Mitigation of Conflicts between Freight and Other Land Uses 60 Airport Mitigation Programs 61 Railroad Mitigation Activities 63 Port and Waterway Mitigation Activities 64 Noise Barriers 65 Layout and Design Elements 65 Hazmat Issues 70 Chapter 9 Education about Freight Transportation Issues 72 Chapter 10 Conclusions 72 Conflicting Land Uses and Barriers to Freight-Transportation- Related Services 73 Sources of Conflicts and Barriers 73 Suggestions for Achieving Freight-Compatible Development 74 Implementation Plan for Disseminating Research Results 75 Publication Plan 76 Bibliography 83 Appendixes Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.